In politics a ‘gaffe’ is when someone accidentally speaks the truth.

Hillary’s gaffe about the ‘deplorables’ is just her being honest about how she, her Hollywood media sycophants and most modern Progressives view the flyover country.

For the modern Progressives ideas are right because the right people think them. Credentialism trumps independent thinking.  They are so convinced of the justice of their cause that debate is futile. The opposition is immoral, irrational,  and unworthy of debate and respect.

There is no debate about the modern relevance of constitutional restrictions on government power. There is no question whether credentialed central planning elite can allocate our resources better than the vast accumulated knowledge of a dynamic consumer market. There is no consideration of whether political self-interest is somehow morally superior to economic self-interest.   There is no discussion of the priority of liberty over democracy, or the problem with reversing that trend.  There is no consideration of whether our system of registered lobbyists is just an institutionalized form of the very corruption that the Progressive movement in its genesis sought to overcome.

There is no discussion of any limits of the Welfare State, or the social impact on families and the cost of fostering dependency. There is no consideration of the vast wastefulness in government, the fostering of cronyism, the perverted incentives of short sighted and misguided tax policies.

There is no discussion of how the modern Progressives have become the tool of special interests rather than the servant of the majority, how rent seeking has made the return on lobbying more profitable than investing in improving productivity which creates jobs.

We are not supposed to examine how regulations and government policy created and magnified the housing and mortgage bubble and the ensuing financial collapse in spite of layers and layers of financial regulation.

We are not to question a how the political system can be used to create vast sums of wealth for those who know how to exploit self-serving connections.  We are not supposed to ask how a charitable foundation can be used to bestow lucrative contracts on friends, employ political operatives, and pay for luxury travel with only the thinnest veneer of charitable work to cover the scam.

We should not question the blatant hypocrisy of getting $200,000 speaking fees at a college while preaching about the high costs of a college education.

We have always had elites, but their success was measured in their consideration of all voters and their ability and commitment to serve them first.  There was always great respect in this realm but it came with great responsibility. Flaws in judgment and action were possibly tolerated but flaws in character, especially arrogance and contempt toward those they serve, were not.  Individuals may not be intimate with the details of economic and foreign policy, but they do understand much more than their own self-interest. They may not know about medicine but they have a good idea if they can trust their doctor, if they are allowed to choose and retain him/her.

While they may not know the details and ramifications of policy, they understand fair play, a rigged system, and whether someone is untrustworthy. They understand the difference between sincere empathy and vacuous platitudes. And they understand policy much better than you think.

It is the left who is anti-intellectual by their refusal to consider the worth of an opposing idea.  It is anti-intellectual to reduce rational thought to moral preening, to demonize people and sources (Fox News) rather than actually address their thoughts and ideas. It is so much easier and so intellectually lazy to reduce the opposition to being anti-science, racist, sexist, fascist or whatever pejorative you can muster to avoid real conversation.

This level of contempt, anti-intellectualism, and blatant dishonesty from a candidate for the highest office is deplorable.